1. Introduction
Distributed microgeneration and minigeneration have become established as important instruments for decentralizing the Brazilian electricity matrix, allowing consumers to produce electricity at the point of use or in remote units, with subsequent compensation for the injected energy through the Electric Energy Compensation System — SCEE.
With the enactment of Law No. 14.300/2022, the SCEE (System for the Control of Energy in Electricity) came to have its own legal discipline, being defined as the system in which the active energy injected by a consumer unit with distributed microgeneration or minigeneration is given to the local distributor, through a free loan, and subsequently offset against the consumption of active electrical energy or accounted for as an energy credit [1].
In this system, energy credits have significant economic relevance, although they are not currency, securities, or freely tradable commodities. They are regulatory credits, measured in active energy, subject to legal and regulatory compensation conditions.
Law No. 14.300/2022 itself establishes that credits expire 60 months after the billing date in which they were generated, reverting, after this period, to the benefit of tariff moderation, without the right to compensation for the consumer participating in the SCEE [1].
The rapid advancement of distributed generation, however, has brought technical challenges to the distribution network. One of the main points of tension has become the analysis of flow reversal, especially in regions with high penetration of photovoltaic generation.
A ANEEL the topic was addressed in Public Consultation No. 3/2024, which received 322 contributions from 107 institutions, culminating in the approval of measures to simplify the connection of distributed microgeneration consumers [2].
In this context, the Normative Resolution was issued. ANEEL No. 1.098/2024, which amended the Normative Resolution ANEEL No. 1.000/2021 and inserted art. 73-A, providing for cases in which the analysis of flow reversal referred to in art. 73 is excluded [3].
In the market, these hypotheses have come to be broadly referred to as "Fast Track," an expression used to designate regulatory pathways for simplified or faster processing of connectivity budgets. However, the generic use of the expression can lead to significant inaccuracies.
This is because Article 73-A does not address a single scenario, but rather three distinct situations: generation without injection into the grid; microgeneration with power compatible with the consumption of the consumer unit; and microgeneration for local self-consumption with installed power equal to or less than 7,5 kW.
The controversy examined in this article focuses especially on the third hypothesis: distributed microgeneration classified under the local self-consumption modality, with an installed generation capacity equal to or less than 7,5 kW, as provided for in Article 73-A, item III, of the REN (Brazilian Energy Regulatory Agency). ANEEL No. 1.000/2021.
The central question is: can a consumer unit that falls under this scenario send credits to another consumer unit? Can it receive credits from another generating unit? In case of a change of ownership, contract termination, or change of classification, is it possible to apply article 655-M to reallocate accumulated credits?
The hypothesis defended in this article is that the answer must be negative. The consumer unit covered by article 73-A, item III, cannot send energy credits from another consumer unit, since § 2, II, of article 73-A itself prohibits, under any circumstances, the allocation or reallocation of surplus or credited energy to a consumer unit different from the one where the generation occurred, expressly excluding the application of article 655-M.
The regulatory gap, therefore, does not lie in the possibility of relocation, which was expressly ruled out for this scenario.
The gap lies in the legal fate of accumulated energy credits when there is a change of ownership, a change in classification, or termination of a consumer unit contract subject to the regime of Article 73-A, item III.
2. Article 73-A of ANEEL Resolution No. 1.000/2021 and the cases in which the analysis of reverse flow is waived.
The Regulatory Resolution ANEEL No. 1.000/2021 consolidates the rules for providing the public service of electricity distribution, bringing together the rights and duties of consumers, other users and distributors [4].
The Regulatory Resolution ANEEL No. 1.098/2024 inserted Article 73-A into REN No. 1.000/2021, providing that the flow reversal analysis referred to in Article 73 is excluded in three situations [3].
The first hypothesis refers to distributed microgeneration and minigeneration that does not inject electricity into the distribution network. In practical terms, this is a solution associated with the so-called "zero grid," in which generation is sized or controlled to avoid exporting energy to the grid [2].
The second hypothesis involves distributed microgeneration that meets the criteria for free access stipulated in § 3 of article 104, § 2 of article 105, and the sole paragraph of article 106 of REN No. 1.000/2021, provided that the distributed generation capacity is compatible with the consumer unit's consumption during the generation period, observing the criteria and instructions of the... ANEEL [3].
The third hypothesis, the main subject of this article, refers to distributed microgeneration framed within the local self-consumption modality, with installed generation capacity equal to or less than 7,5 kW, observing the specific provisions of art. 73-A [3].
It is important to highlight that article 73-A does not eliminate the connection budget. The rule itself provides that, even in situations where the flow reversal analysis is waived, the distributor must continue to prepare and provide the connection budget within the applicable regulatory deadlines [3].
Thus, Article 73-A does not dispense with the connection procedure as a whole. It eliminates a specific stage of technical analysis—the analysis of flow reversal—when the normative hypotheses are met. It is, therefore, a procedural simplification rule, and not a broad authorization for the free movement of credits, change of modality, or flexibilization of the SCEE.
3. Local self-consumption and the closed logic regarding credits generated by the unit itself.
The third hypothesis of article 73-A is directly linked to the concept of local self-consumption. The Normative Resolution ANEEL Decree No. 1.098/2024 included a specific definition for this modality, associated with electricity generation close to the load, in which the surplus and credit of electricity generated are fully compensated by the same consumer unit [3]. This definition is decisive.
In local self-consumption, generation, consumption, surplus, and credits remain within the same consumer unit. Unlike remote self-consumption, shared generation, or multi-unit consumer projects, there is no regulatory logic for the circulation of credits between different units.
This regulatory framework explains why Article 73-A, item III, received more restrictive treatment. The exemption from the reverse flow analysis, in this case, was conditional on a configuration with low systemic impact: small-scale microgeneration, up to 7,5 kW, classified as local self-consumption.
The regulatory rationale seems simple: a ANEEL It allowed for a simplified process for small-scale units that generate and offset revenue within the same unit, but, conversely, prohibited the allocation or reallocation of credits to different units. The simplification of the technical analysis was accompanied by restrictions on the mobility of surpluses and credits.
Therefore, the classification under Article 73-A, item III, cannot be interpreted as a simplified form of distributed generation with freedom of allocation. On the contrary, it is a restrictive hypothesis, in which the consumer unit benefits from the exemption from the flow reversal analysis, but accepts to remain under a strict local self-consumption regime.
4. The express prohibition of art. 73-a, § 2, ii
The central legal point is in § 2, II, of art. 73-A. The rule establishes that the classification under item III of the caput is conditional upon compliance with certain provisions. Among them, it expressly provides that the allocation or reallocation of surplus or credit energy to a consumer unit different from that where the generation of electricity occurred is prohibited under any circumstances, thus excluding the provisions of art. 655-M [3].
This wording contains three relevant normative commands. The first command is the prohibition of allocating surpluses or credits to a different consumer unit. This prevents surpluses generated by the unit covered by article 73-A, item III, from being allocated to another consumer unit.
The second rule prohibits reallocation. This prevents existing credits from being subsequently transferred to a different unit, even in cases where, under the general rule, reallocation would be possible.
The third requirement is the express exclusion of Article 655-M. This is the most relevant element for the issue of accumulated credits, because Article 655-M is precisely the rule that governs the reallocation of credits in case of contract termination or change of ownership of a consumer unit participating in the SCEE (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory System).
Thus, for the unit covered by article 73-A, item III, it is not enough to say that the general rule of the SCEE allows for the reallocation of credits in case of a change in ownership. This general rule exists, but it was expressly excluded by the specific regulation.
Therefore, the logic of normative specialty applies: the general rule of article 655-M yields to the specific rule of article 73-A, § 2, II, when the consumer unit falls under item III.
5. Article 655-me is the general rule for the reallocation of credits.
Article 655-M of the REN ANEEL No. 1.000/2021 provides that only in cases of contract termination or change of ownership of a consumer unit participating in the SCEE can energy credits be reallocated to other consumer units [5].
The general rule is structured around preserving the holder's credits. In cases of contract termination or change of ownership, the credits must be reallocated to consumer units of the same holder served by the same distributor, as indicated by the holder himself [5].
If the consumer does not make the indication within 30 days from the termination of the contract or the change of ownership, the credits must be reallocated to the consumer unit of their ownership with the highest consumption served by the same distributor [5].
If there are no other consumer units of the holder served by the same distributor, the credits must remain in their name for up to 60 months, counted from the date they were generated, and must be automatically reallocated to a consumer unit of the same holder that is connected within that period [5].
Article 655-M also prohibits, as a rule, the allocation of credits to a consumer unit belonging to another holder, admitting an exception only when certain conditions relating to a multi-unit consumer project with distributed microgeneration or minigeneration or a shared generation project are jointly met [5].
In general terms, therefore, article 655-M has a protective function: it prevents the immediate loss of credits in case of contract termination or change of ownership, but preserves the logic of ownership and prevents the irregular commercialization of credits.
However, this general protective regime was not replicated for the case of Article 73-A, item III. On the contrary, it was expressly excluded.
This is where the core of the regulatory controversy arises: if Article 655-M is the ordinary mechanism for preserving and reallocating credits in case of contract termination or change of ownership, and if it has been expressly excluded for the unit covered by Article 73-A, item III, what is the fate of the accumulated credits?
6. Can a unit classified under article 73-a, item iii, send credits?
The answer is no. A consumer unit classified under Article 73-A, item III, cannot send surpluses or credits to another consumer unit, even if it belongs to the same owner and is served by the same distributor.
The prohibition stems directly from § 2, II, of art. 73-A, which prohibits, under any circumstances, the allocation or reallocation of surplus or credited energy to a consumer unit different from the one where the generation occurred [3].
Therefore, if the energy was generated in the unit covered by item III, the surplus and the resulting credit must be offset in the consumer unit itself. Transfer to a remote, beneficiary, anchor, or higher-consumption unit is not permitted.
This conclusion also stems from the very definition of local self-consumption. If the surplus and the credit must be fully offset in the same consumer unit, the allocation to another unit would invalidate the logic of the classification [3].
Thus, the unit referred to in Article 73-A, item III, does not function as a remote generator, does not act as a credit center, and cannot supply a portfolio of beneficiary consumer units.
7. The unit classified under article 73-a, item iii, as a beneficiary of credits generated by another unit.
The interpretation of Article 73-A, § 2, II, requires attention to the legal direction of the prohibition. The provision establishes that, for distributed microgeneration to fall under item III of Article 73-A, the allocation or reallocation of surplus or credited energy to a consumer unit different from the one where the electricity generation occurred is prohibited under any circumstances, thus excluding the provisions of Article 655-M.
A literal and systematic reading of the regulation indicates that the prohibition applies to surpluses and credits generated by the consumer unit itself, as defined in Article 73-A, item III. In other words, if the generation occurred in the unit benefiting from the exemption from flow reversal analysis, this surplus energy and the resulting credits must remain linked to the consumer unit where the generation occurred.
This conclusion is consistent with the public guidance disseminated by ANEEL when Normative Resolution No. 1.098/2024 was approved.
At the time, the Agency stated that, in order to benefit from the measure, the consumer must ensure that the generation of up to 7,5 kW is intended for the use of the local load, by signing a document in which they declare that they accept that the allocation of surplus or credit energy will only occur at the consumer unit where the generation took place.
However, the wording of Article 73-A, § 2, II, does not expressly prohibit a consumer unit classified under item III from being a beneficiary of credits originating from another generating unit, provided that this other unit is duly classified under a SCEE modality that allows the allocation of surpluses to beneficiary units.
Therefore, there is a relevant distinction between two legal situations. In the first, the unit covered by article 73-A, item III, is the generating unit. In this case, the surpluses and credits generated by it cannot be sent, allocated, or reallocated to another consuming unit.
Secondly, the unit classified under article 73-A, item III, is only a beneficiary of credits generated by another consumer unit.
In this scenario, there is no express prohibition in Article 73-A that prevents the receipt, provided that the originating generating unit can, through its own participation model in the SCEE (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory System), allocate surpluses or credits to the beneficiary unit.
This distinction is fundamental to avoid an overly restrictive interpretation of the provision. Article 73-A, item III, creates a limitation on the mobility of credits generated by the local self-consumption unit subject to the fast track, but does not automatically transform that unit into a unit ineligible to receive credits originating from other regular compensation structures.
Thus, the most appropriate argument is that a consumer unit classified under Article 73-A, item III, cannot send credits from its own generation to other units, but it can receive credits from another generating unit, provided that the general rules of the SCEE (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory System) and the origin of the credits are respected.
8. Change of ownership and acceptance of the terms and conditions by the new owner.
Article 73-A also governs the possibility of changing the ownership of the consumer unit covered by item III.
According to paragraph 3, in case of a change of ownership, the new owner must formalize acceptance of the conditions stipulated in items I and II of paragraph 2, through a standardized document. ANEEL, observing article 138, or terminate the contract and request a new connection quote, applying the provisions in force at the time of the new request, with the application of article 655-M being prohibited [3]. This provision reinforces the seriousness of the restriction.
The new owner does not simply assume control of the consumer unit with the freedom to change the allocation of credits or informally restructure the operation. They must expressly accept that the unit remains under local self-consumption and that the allocation or reallocation of surpluses or credits to a different unit is prohibited.
The Approval Resolution ANEEL No. 3.354/2024 approved the new model of the Connection Budget Form for microgeneration and distributed minigeneration plants and the Acceptance Term of the conditions of item III of art. 73-A of REN No. 1.000/2021, which reinforces the need for formal expression of the consumer regarding the specific conditions of this classification [6].
This acceptance agreement plays a significant legal role because it transforms the consumer's choice of classification into an express statement regarding the applicable regulatory limitations. It is not merely an administrative form; it is an instrument that documents the consumer's awareness of the restriction on the allocation and reallocation of credits.
9. Change of classification and prohibition of the application of article 655-m
Section 6 of article 73-A establishes that, if the consumer chooses to change the classification of microgeneration referred to in item III, they must terminate the contract and request a new connection quote, and the application of article 655-M [3] is prohibited. This rule is especially relevant.
Under normal conditions, the termination of a contract for a consumer unit participating in the SCEE (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory System) would trigger Article 655-M, allowing the reallocation of credits to another unit belonging to the same owner and served by the same distributor. However, in the case of a unit classified under Article 73-A, item III, the rule expressly states that, even with the termination of the contract for the purpose of changing classification, the application of Article 655-M is prohibited.
This means that leaving the simplified local self-consumption regime does not, in itself, allow for the preservation of credits through the ordinary method of reallocation.
The consequence is legally sensitive: the consumer may have accumulated credits in the unit, but, upon changing the classification or terminating the contract, they are prevented from using the general regulatory mechanism designed to preserve credits.
This is the main gap in the system. The rule states what the consumer cannot do: they cannot allocate, they cannot reallocate, they cannot apply article 655-M. But it does not state, in a sufficiently clear way, what solution should be adopted for credits that have already been established and have not yet been offset.
10. The regulatory gap: what happens to accumulated credits?
The regulatory gap does not lie in the possibility of relocation. For the unit classified under Article 73-A, item III, relocation to another unit was expressly prohibited.
The loophole lies in the fate of accumulated credits when a situation occurs that, under the general rule, would normally trigger Article 655-M: change of ownership, contract termination, or change of classification. There are at least four possible interpretations, each with distinct legal consequences.
The first interpretation would be the automatic loss of credits upon contract termination or change of classification.
This interpretation, however, is the most burdensome for the consumer and should depend on explicit regulatory provisions, especially since the credits arise from energy that has actually been injected, accounted for, and recognized in the SCEE (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory System). Automatic loss, without a clear rule, can raise questions from the perspective of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.
The second interpretation would be to maintain the credits within the consumer unit itself until they are fully compensated or expire within a 60-month period. This solution preserves the logic of local self-consumption, but it may become unfeasible when there is a contract termination or change of ownership, as the unit ceases to be under the same owner or ceases to exist contractually in that configuration.
The third interpretation would be the practical transfer of credits to the new owner of the consumer unit. This interpretation, however, contradicts the logic of the SCEE (System of Electricity Commercialization), since the credits were established under previous ownership and, as a general rule, cannot be freely transferred to third parties. Furthermore, it could create an indirect mechanism for the economic circulation of credits through the simple change of ownership.
The fourth interpretation would be to maintain the credits in the name of the original holder, without reallocation to another unit, until eventual compensation within the same unit or expiration. This solution preserves the original ownership of the credits, but also faces practical difficulties if the unit has a new holder or if the contract has been terminated.
None of these solutions is fully satisfactory, precisely because the rule removed the general relocation mechanism but did not create a specific substitute discipline.
Therefore, Article 73-A, item III, opens up a sensitive regulatory zone: the prohibition is clear regarding the impossibility of transferring credits, but the treatment of past credits, accumulated before the change of ownership, change of classification, or termination of the contract, still lacks more objective regulation.
11. Final considerations
An analysis of article 73-A of the Normative Resolution ANEEL Decree No. 1.000/2021 allows us to conclude that the consumer unit classified under item III — distributed microgeneration in local self-consumption, with installed power equal to or less than 7,5 kW — is subject to a restrictive compensation regime.
This system does not allow the allocation or reallocation of surplus or credited energy to a consumer unit different from the one where the generation occurred. The prohibition is explicit and is accompanied by the exclusion of Article 655-M, which is precisely the general rule for reallocating credits in case of contract termination or change of ownership.
Therefore, a consumer unit (UC) classified under article 73-A, item III, cannot send credits to another consumer unit.
The conclusion requires a broader review of the Fast Track framework. It is not a simplified form of distributed generation that fully retains the ordinary rights of the Energy Efficiency Control System (SCEE). Rather, it is a specific instance where the analysis of reverse flow is waived, granted under restrictive conditions.
The most relevant regulatory problem lies in the fate of accumulated credits. By excluding the application of Article 655-M, the rule prevents the use of the general reallocation mechanism, but does not precisely define what should happen to credits already established in situations of change of ownership, change of classification, or contract termination.
This gap can generate legal uncertainty, undue economic loss, and uneven treatment among distributors. Therefore, it would be advisable that the ANEEL edit specific guidelines or improve REN No. 1.000/2021 to expressly regulate the destination of past credits in cases of inclusion, change of ownership, or exit from the regime of Article 73-A, item III.
Until that happens, the preventative guidance is clear: before opting for the classification under article 73-A, item III, the consumer should assess whether they have accumulated credits, whether they intend to transfer credits from another unit, and whether there is a future possibility of changing ownership or classification. Choosing Fast Track, in this case, may simplify the connection, but it also severely restricts the mobility of energy credits.
In summary, the central argument is: in article 73-A, item III, the regulatory benefit of waiving the analysis of reverse flow is accompanied by a restrictive counterpart — the consumer unit remains closed in local self-consumption, without sending or reallocating credits to a different unit. The loophole is not in the permission to reallocate, but in the destination of credits already accumulated when reallocation has been expressly prohibited.
Sources
[1] BRAZIL. Law No. 14.300, of January 6, 2022. Establishes the legal framework for distributed microgeneration and minigeneration, the Electric Energy Compensation System — SCEE and the Social Renewable Energy Program — PERS. The law regulates energy compensation, credits and the 60-month validity period. Source: Planalto Portal.
[2] NATIONAL ELECTRIC ENERGY AGENCY — ANEEL. "ANEEL "Approves measures to simplify the connection of distributed microgeneration consumers." Published on July 23, 2024. A ANEEL It informs that the proposal on reverse flow was debated in Public Consultation No. 3/2024, with 322 contributions from 107 institutions, and mentions the hypotheses for exemption from reverse flow studies.
[3] NATIONAL ELECTRIC ENERGY AGENCY — ANEELRegulatory Resolution ANEEL No. 1.098, of July 23, 2024. Amends Normative Resolution ANEEL Law No. 1.000/2021 includes Article 73-A, which regulates cases where reverse flow analysis is not required and specific conditions for local self-consumption up to 7,5 kW. Source: Official Gazette of the Union.
[4] NATIONAL ELECTRIC ENERGY AGENCY — ANEELResolution 1000 of ANEEL"Your rights regarding electricity, now in one place." Institutional page of ANEEL Regarding the consolidation of rules for providing the public electricity distribution service.
[5] NATIONAL ELECTRIC ENERGY AGENCY — ANEELRegulatory Resolution ANEEL No. 1.000/2021, as amended by Normative Resolution ANEEL No. 1.059/2023. Article 655-M governs the reallocation of energy credits in cases of contract termination or change of ownership of a consumer unit participating in the SCEE (Brazilian Electricity Regulatory System). Consolidated normative source consulted.
[6] NATIONAL ELECTRIC ENERGY AGENCY — ANEELApproval Resolution ANEEL No. 3.354, of July 23, 2024. Approves the new model of the Connection Budget Form for microgeneration and distributed minigeneration plants and the Acceptance Term of the conditions of item III of the caput of article 73-A of the Normative Resolution. ANEEL No. 1.000/2021.
[7] NATIONAL ELECTRIC ENERGY AGENCY — ANEELInstitutional page for "Micro and Mini Distributed Generation". A ANEEL It explains how the SCEE works, the existence of energy surpluses, the possibility of distribution to other units according to the type of participation in the system, and the validity period of the credits of 60 months.
The opinions and information expressed are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the author. Canal Solar.
